Co-administration of opioid agonists and antagonists in addiction and pain medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: mu-Opioid agonists have clinically useful effects and are used in a variety of acute and chronic pain conditions. However, repeated exposure to these drugs can lead to the development of physiologic dependence and, in some individuals, to opioid addiction. OBJECTIVE: This review describes different rationales and modes of co-administration of opioid agonists and antagonists to increase and decrease the desired and undesired effects of the agonists. METHODS: Publications in the English language were identified through a MEDLINE search and the bibliographies of identified articles were reviewed. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: The clinical indication is a crucial determinant of how opioid agonists and antagonists are co-administered and, in turn, the selection of mode of co-administration (i.e., sequential or simultaneous) determines the most appropriate type of antagonist, dosage and route of administration. However, because each clinical application has both benefits and limitations, it is suggested that co-administration parameters need to be adjusted to the specific requirements of individual patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".